Originally published by Al Shabaka Palestinian Policy Network.
The 2018 mid-term elections are expected to be the most expensive in American history. Four years ago, the 2014 mid-term elections had fewer donors than in previous elections but spending still surpassed previous elections. To fill their campaign coffers, Democrats and Republicans are again expected to rely on mega donors. Democrats have outraised Republicans to date, and in response the Republican Party has turned to billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson.Â 1
Over the past decade, Adelson has been a leading donor to the Republican Party. He influenced President Donald Trumpâs recognition of Jerusalem as Israelâs capital late last year and offered to partially underwrite the construction of the new US embassy. Faced with a large number of competitive races in 2018, Republicans were reportedly âdesperate for Adelsonâs millions.â Prior to the opening of the new Jerusalem embassy, Adelson donated $55 million to the Republican PartyâsÂ Congressional Leadership FundÂ (CLF) and SenateÂ Leadership Fund. Adelsonâs contribution to the CLF was not only three times larger than the $10 million he donated in 2016, but it was given at a much earlier date.Â In the final weeks before the midterm elections, AdelsonÂ donatedÂ even more to the Republican Party.
Adelsonâs involvement demonstrates the outsized influence of prominent donors on American political campaigns and on the development and implementation of domestic and foreign policies. The two- and four-year election cycles in the United States require enormous funding and nearly endless political fundraising by candidates and political parties. At a minimum, large campaign contributions by individuals and corporations influence the parameters of acceptable debate on domestic and foreign policies in the United States.
Like other issue-driven voters and donors, pro-Israel supporters fund the candidates that share their perspectives and challenge those who do not. Once elected, politicians backed by pro-Israel donors generally support policies that reflect and reinforce Americaâs bias toward Israel. Although this may be based on shared principles, the fear that donors could fund an opposition candidate over a particular vote or stance on policy issues is a constant reality that politicians face. This is not limited to Israel, as demonstrated by the debate over gun control in the United States. These factors will be on display again with the 2018 midterm elections.
While Adelson has generously supported Republicans, another pro-Israel donor, entertainment magnate Haim Saban, has focused on the Democrats. In a 2010Â New YorkerÂ magazine profile, SabanÂ assertedÂ that the âthree ways to be influential in American politicsâ were donations to political parties, establishing think tanks, and controlling media outlets. Six years earlier, in aÂ New York TimesÂ interview, SabanÂ explainedÂ his interest in politics and foreign policy in simple terms: âI am a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.âÂ Although Saban and Adelson are on opposite sides of the American political spectrum, they have adopted similar approaches in their support of Israel.
Since 2008, Adelson has donatedÂ over $170 millionÂ to Republican political candidates. In 2008, he was theÂ key contributorÂ to Freedom Watch, a newly-established âsuperâ political action committee (PAC)Â whose leadership was comprised of former members of the George W. Bush administration. âSuper PACsâ can receive unlimited funds from individuals, unions, or corporations. The amounts donated and spent by Super PACs are reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the independent regulatory body that administers and enforces US campaign finance law. Although Super PACs cannot make contributions directly to or coordinate with individual candidates, the oversight is lax and the fines are often trivial. Adelson spent $30 million in a losing effort as the Democratic Party swept the presidential and Congressional races, and Freedom Watch was later shuttered.
Four years later, Adelson promised to spend $100 million to defeat President Barack Obama. He initially supported the presidential aspirations of Newt Gingrich, who served as US Speaker of the House of Representatives from 1995-1999. As speaker, Gingrich was the leader of the Republican right wing and opponent of then President Bill Clinton. In December 2011, seven months after he announced his candidacy for president, Gingrich was interviewed by the Jewish Channel television station. HeÂ stated, “I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and who were historically part of the Arab community.” Gingrich added that the Palestinians “had a chance to go many places, and for a variety of political reasons we [the United States] have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and it’s tragic.” Gingrich eventually lost the nomination to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, but not before Adelson contributed $15 million to his campaign.
As the Republican Partyâs presidential nominee, Romney also benefited from Adelsonâs largesse, and reportedly received $20 million.Â After securing the Republican nomination, Romney traveled to Israel in July 2012.Â At a fundraiser held in Jerusalem, Romney wasÂ seated next to Adelson. In his speech, Romney ignored Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories and its impact on the Palestinian economy and society. Romney claimed that Israel’s economic vitality, especially in comparison to the Palestinian Authority, was due in part to its cultural superiority over the Palestinians.
In addition to these direct donations, Adelson contributedÂ at least $33 millionÂ to political action committees and reelection funds affiliated with the Republican Party. Publicly Adelson is believed to have contributed as much as $150 million to Republican Party candidates in 2012, but his efforts largely failed to achieve the desired result as Obama was reelected and Democrats added seats in the US Congress.
It is also worth noting that in the US electoral system, it is possible for individuals to make donations to organizations that are not required to report the names of the donors to the FEC.Â 2Â These donations have become known as âdark money,â and the amounts have increased dramatically in the past eight years since the US Supreme Courtâs controversial ruling in theÂ Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionÂ case. In the 2010 case, the court ruled that it was unconstitutional to prevent corporations or organizations from supporting or opposing particular candidates or issues through paid advertisements. However, the court did not overturn the restriction on direct contributions by corporations and organizations to individual candidates. Therefore, it is unlikely that mega donors like Adelson have limited their contributions to only non-dark money groups. Indeed, Adelsonâs total contributions may be far greater than what has been reported.Â 3
After the poor showings in 2008 and 2012, Adelson adopted a lower profile and did not publicly support a particular candidate during the 2016 Republican primaries. Adelson gave overÂ $82.5 millionÂ to political groups opposed to Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton as well as key Congressional and Senate campaigns. This included donatingÂ $20 millionÂ to a Trump-aligned Super PAC.
Adelson has benefited financially from his donations and access. In late 2017, President Trump signed a bill that instituted major changes to the US tax code, and Adelsonâs Las Vegas Sands corporationÂ reported a $700 millionÂ gain from the legislation.
Meanwhile, Haim Saban has focused his donations on the Democratic Party.Â From 1999 to 2008, he gave over $11 million to the party and candidates. Saban was a major supporter and fundraiser for Hillary Clintonâs unsuccessful 2008 campaign for the Democratic Party nomination. Saban donatedÂ at least $1.3 million in 2012, with most of the funds targeted at House and Senate campaigns. Four years later, Saban gaveÂ over $11.9 millionÂ to the Democratic Party and ClintonâsÂ failed 2016 presidential bid.
Campaign contributions are only part of the story. Adelson has beenÂ a major funderÂ of Birthright Israel, which provides Jews between the ages of 18 and 26 free trips to Israel, and has been a major supporter of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. He was alsoÂ an avid supporterÂ of the pro-Israel lobbying organization, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). While Saban donated $7 million to the Democratic National Committeeâs new headquarters, Adelson contributed to AIPACâs new office in Washington and helped fund AIPAC-sponsored tours of Israel for Republican lawmakers.
However, Adelson criticized AIPAC after it supported expanded US aid for the Palestinian Authority and reportedly broke with the organization. Since then, he has beenÂ a key donorÂ to the Christian evangelical organization, Christians United for Israel, led by Pastor John Hagee. Christians United for Israel was one of the most vocal organizations in favor of Washington recognizing Jerusalem as Israelâs capital, and Hagee hailed Trumpâs decision.
Both Saban and Adelson have invested in news outlets. Saban is the chairman and part-owner of Univision, the US-based, Spanish-language television network. Univision has a large viewership and during the 2016 election the Trump campaignÂ criticized the networkÂ for its coverage and apparent bias toward Clinton. In contrast, Adelson has focused on print media. In 2007, heÂ launchedÂ Israel Hayom, a free daily newspaper withÂ close tiesÂ to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Eight years later,Â he secretly purchasedÂ theÂ Las Vegas Review Journal, which was the cityâs leading newspaper and often had critical coverage of Adelson and his companyâs policies. A number ofÂ reporters and editors leftÂ theÂ Las Vegas Review JournalÂ after it was acquired by Adelson.
Think tanks are another arena where Saban and Adelson have been active. After the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit and in the midst of the second Palestinian intifada, Saban decided to establish a think tank specifically focused on the Middle East and securing Israelâs future. He made a $13 million donation to the Brookings Institution and the Saban Center for Middle East Policy was established. Although Brookings has generally been regarded as a moderate think tank with ties to the Democratic Party, scholars affiliated with the Saban Center openly advocated for the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. In addition, the Saban Center and other Washington-based think tanks have increasingly emphasized conflict management of Israelâs occupation, rather than conflict resolution.Â 4
Saban hosts an annual forum at Brookings. Prior to Trumpâs announcement on Jerusalem, the presidentâs son-in-law and advisor, Jared Kushner, was a guest. Kushnerâs family has a foundation, the Kushner Companies Charitable Foundation, that hasÂ donated moneyÂ to the Beit El settlement near Ramallah. Built on private Palestinian land seized by Israel, the Beit El settlement has received support from other wealthy Americans through an organization called the American Friends of Bet El Institutions. Indeed, the former president of the organization is the current US Ambassador to Israel and Trumpâs former lawyer, David Friedman.
Although Saban hasÂ publicly expressed supportÂ for the two-state solution and a divided Jerusalem in an eventual agreement with the Palestinians, he did not criticize Kushnerâs support for settlements. Instead, Saban thanked Kushner for attempting in late 2016 to undermine a United Nations Security Council resolution critical of Israelâs settlements that was supported by the Obama administration before Trump took office. The public interference by then president-elect Trump in the Obama administrationâs belated and timid efforts was unprecedented and may have been a violation of US law. âAs far as I know, nothing illegal there,âÂ Saban told Kushner, âbut I think that this crowd and myself want to thank you for making that effort. So thank you very much.â Nor has Saban publicly criticized Trumpâs decision on Jerusalem.
Saban has chosen to focus his ire on critics of Israel. In May, heÂ scolded sixÂ Democratic Party Senators who signed a letter requesting US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to help relieve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The letter was in response to Israeli troopsâ massacre of Palestinian protestors in Gaza during the Great March of Return. âFor you to listen to Senator [Bernie] Sanders and accuse Israel of being the main culprit is outrageous, misinformed, offensive and shows a lack of understanding of the regionâs basic fundamentals,â Saban wrote. He admonished the senators: âDo your homework.â
Like Saban, Adelson funded his own think tank. The Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies wasÂ founded in 2006Â after its namesake made a $4.5 million donation to the neoconservative Shalem Center in Jerusalem. A 2007 conference hosted by the institute featured leading opposition figures in the Iranian diaspora. Adelson attended and was dismissive of individuals who did not favor attacking Iran.Â He reportedly declared, âI really donât care what happens to Iran. I am for Israel.â
Saban and Adelson have also agreed that the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement must be stopped. In June 2015, they put aside partisan differences and combined efforts and funds toÂ challenge BDS. Shortly after Saban and Adelson met in Las Vegas, their efforts were endorsed by Hillary Clinton as part of her campaign for the presidency.Â In a letter to SabanÂ written on campaign letterhead, Clinton stated, âI know you agree that we need to make countering BDS a priority.â She added, âI am seeking your advice on how we can work together â across party lines and with a diverse array of voices â to reverse this trend with information and advocacy, and fight back against further attempts to isolate and delegitimize Israel.â
The Clinton campaignâs hacked emails suggest that the letter was meant to appease donorsÂ before she announcedÂ her support for theÂ 2015 IranianÂ nuclear dealÂ negotiated by the Obama administration. Five months after Clintonâs letter was written, Saban hostedÂ a private meetingÂ at the Saban Center to counter BDS. Even after securing the Democratic Party nomination, the Clinton campaignÂ blocked attempts toÂ refer to Israelâs military rule over the Palestinians as an âoccupationâ in the Democratic Party platform. YetÂ recent media reportsÂ suggest that the anti-BDS partnership between Saban and Adelson has collapsed and the two men are no longer coordinating their efforts.
As demonstrated by the actions and rhetoric ofÂ leading Democrats, includingÂ Senate minority leader Charles Schumer, the Democratic Party is unlikely to challenge Trumpâs policies toward the Palestinians. Indeed, it demonstratesÂ the bipartisan consensusÂ in the United States toward Israelâs continued occupation of the Palestinian Territories. Although Democrats are projected to win a majority in the House of Representatives in November, the influence ofÂ pro-Israel mega donors likeÂ Saban and Adelson on the political parties will only increase in preparation for the 2020 campaign.
Yet there is hope for Palestinian activists and their allies. Victories by progressive insurgent candidates in Democratic Party primaries demonstrate that there is frustration with the stale orthodoxy of the partyâs establishment andÂ limits to the influence of major donors. It also reveals that support for Palestinian rights may no longer be considered a detriment, if not a disqualification, for election to higher office. Although some progressive candidates were quick to express theirÂ opposition to BDS, Palestinian solidarity activists should continue to develop broad coalitions and alliances with individuals and advocacy organizations based on shared values of anti-racism, equality, social justice, and human rights. Identifying and supporting candidates at the state and local levels who embrace these values is essential to building a movement for real change. Moreover, it is imperative that candidates beÂ held accountable for their positionsÂ and the endorsements they receive, especially from organizations that are opposed to Palestinian rights.
Much like the outreach to progressive Jewish organizations in North America, Europe, and Israel, coordination with supportive American evangelical congregations and communities is vital. Although evangelicals comprise an estimated 25 percent of US adults and have consistently supported Israel, significant divisions have begun to emerge. This has been due in part to the important role played by Palestinian Christians and theÂ Kairos Palestine documentÂ in detailing theÂ realities of Israelâs occupation, especially in Palestinian cities that are traditional tourist destinations like East Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
As in the American Jewish community, there are also generational divisions. An increasing number of younger evangelicals have adopted more progressive positions on social issues. AÂ recent pollÂ demonstrated that evangelicals ages 18 to 34 viewed Israel less favorably than the over-65 age group (58% to 76%).
The implications of dark money are not limited to the Palestinians or Washingtonâs policies toward the Middle East. Indeed, the need for comprehensive campaign finance reform in the United States has arguably never been greater or more difficult. In the absence of reform, robust fundraising efforts focused on small donors combined with broad-based, effective grassroots campaigns will be essential to challenging the agenda of mega donors.
About the author:Â Al-Shabaka Policy Advisor Osamah Khalil is a co-founder,Â board treasurer, and former co-director of Al-Shabaka. He is Associate Professor of History at Syracuse Universityâs Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. Khalil is the author ofÂ Americaâs Dream Palace: Middle East Expertise and the Rise of the National Security StateÂ (Harvard University Press, 2016).
Opinion/Analysis 10/16/18:Â New Israeli Laws Enhance Creeping Annexation Policy